Protip: if you're a civilian in an active war zone, don't disguise yourself as a combatant. When you're picked up by the drives and they see you're actively making yourself from detection, you think that's going to make them LESS likely to kill you?

Therein lies the rub... You have it exactly backwards. Terrorists DON'T HAVE UNIFORMS. Civilians can't "disguise themselves" as a combatant when the combatants from one side of the conflict are disguising themselves as civilians. With that reasoning you're effectively giving the US military carte blanche to just murder whoever the fark they see. I could see being a civilian in a country we have drones flying around shooting people in and wanting to shield yourself from their sensors as much as possible.

And subby, while I don't want to spend $500 on one I'd sure like to find out what materials/techniques he used so I could DIY one for myself though. If nothing else, it would be cool to make.

theorellior:meanmutton: The intended meaning: instead of trying to create a society where we ignore skin color and judge people in their actions and character, we've created a system if institutionalized racism through race-based preferences that has hurt both individuals and society, entrenched poverty and dependence among certain minority groups, and hurts individuals who were born into poverty, abuse, etc., but happened to be white.

That seems like a reach. King's dream was that his children be judged on the content of their character, which is not affirmative action by any stretch. In other words, we've not yet reached King's preferred state. This bumper sticker seems to think we've reached King's dream in the form of Barack Obama, and it's a horrible nightmare. It basically reads like the idea of giving blacks rights has gotten them all uppity and look who they elected, a Commie fascist cryptomuslin socialist usurper.

Oh, it's very poor communication, no doubt. But when have bumper stickers ever been good at explaining complex ideologies?

mongbiohazard:meanmutton: I love the note that he's getting orders from Afghanistan.

"So, I might be guilty of some... minor treason."

Protip: if you're a civilian in an active war zone, don't disguise yourself as a combatant. When you're picked up by the drives and they see you're actively making yourself from detection, you think that's going to make them LESS likely to kill you?

Therein lies the rub... You have it exactly backwards. Terrorists DON'T HAVE UNIFORMS. Civilians can't "disguise themselves" as a combatant when the combatants from one side of the conflict are disguising themselves as civilians. With that reasoning you're effectively giving the US military carte blanche to just murder whoever the fark they see. I could see being a civilian in a country we have drones flying around shooting people in and wanting to shield yourself from their sensors as much as possible.

And subby, while I don't want to spend $500 on one I'd sure like to find out what materials/techniques he used so I could DIY one for myself though. If nothing else, it would be cool to make.

Maybe the new terrorist uniform could be Stealth Wear® hoodies. Much easier to tell apart from the civilians that way.

I swear I'm not being willfully ignorant nor antagonistic, but is all this drone/filibuster/etc. fuss over a memo a proposed CIA director wherein he basically said 'no, of course we didn't/wouldn't do such a thing?'

... or did the person say, yeah - we were going to do it, but decided against it....... or did the person say, yeah - we were going to do it, and may consider doing it in the future...... or did the person say, yeah - we didn't do it, but we're going to...

And this is not 'against' any American citizen nor on American soil, but as a possible means of proactively deterring turrist acts?

I honestly don't understand where the facts end and the complaining begin on this one, but would appreciate any CONCISE information anyone has.

Other than advertising "I'm a racist", what could that bumper sticker possibly be trying to convey? It's not humorous. It's not clever or witty. It's just dumb and racist.

The intended meaning: instead of trying to create a society where we ignore skin color and judge people in their actions and character, we've created a system if institutionalized racism through race-based preferences that has hurt both individuals and society, entrenched poverty and dependence among certain minority groups, and hurts individuals who were born into poverty, abuse, etc., but happened to be white.

That is their point.

And so attacking King's Dream speech makes sense? There's a jump in logic in there that probably makes sense to these nincompoops.

farkplug:Isn't this "news" at least a month old? I remember blogging about it in December. Warning: headline may be a repeat. Warning: drones may be overhead, but if you've got a hoodie on, you're all set.

Other than advertising "I'm a racist", what could that bumper sticker possibly be trying to convey? It's not humorous. It's not clever or witty. It's just dumb and racist.

The intended meaning: instead of trying to create a society where we ignore skin color and judge people in their actions and character, we've created a system if institutionalized racism through race-based preferences that has hurt both individuals and society, entrenched poverty and dependence among certain minority groups, and hurts individuals who were born into poverty, abuse, etc., but happened to be white.

America murders people overseas with its drones even when it has no idea who the target actually is. You think obscuring yourself with a special hoodie would stop them from firing missiles at you anyway?

The My Little Pony Killer:How about I just don't get myself involved with al Qaeda, thus not giving the U.S. government the opportunity to place me on one of their terrorist lists? Yeah, that way sounds easier and cheaper.

/and yes, you folks crying about drones sound like terrorists

There have been millions of civilians killed, injured, and/or displaced since the War on Terror began. I think you need a new plan.

DROxINxTHExWIND:The My Little Pony Killer: How about I just don't get myself involved with al Qaeda, thus not giving the U.S. government the opportunity to place me on one of their terrorist lists? Yeah, that way sounds easier and cheaper.

/and yes, you folks crying about drones sound like terrorists

There have been millions of civilians killed, injured, and/or displaced since the War on Terror began. I think you need a new plan.

meanmutton:theorellior: meanmutton: The intended meaning: instead of trying to create a society where we ignore skin color and judge people in their actions and character, we've created a system if institutionalized racism through race-based preferences that has hurt both individuals and society, entrenched poverty and dependence among certain minority groups, and hurts individuals who were born into poverty, abuse, etc., but happened to be white.

That seems like a reach. King's dream was that his children be judged on the content of their character, which is not affirmative action by any stretch. In other words, we've not yet reached King's preferred state. This bumper sticker seems to think we've reached King's dream in the form of Barack Obama, and it's a horrible nightmare. It basically reads like the idea of giving blacks rights has gotten them all uppity and look who they elected, a Commie fascist cryptomuslin socialist usurper.

Oh, it's very poor communication, no doubt. But when have bumper stickers ever been good at explaining complex ideologies?

Other than advertising "I'm a racist", what could that bumper sticker possibly be trying to convey? It's not humorous. It's not clever or witty. It's just dumb and racist.

The intended meaning: instead of trying to create a society where we ignore skin color and judge people in their actions and character, we've created a system if institutionalized racism through race-based preferences that has hurt both individuals and society, entrenched poverty and dependence among certain minority groups, and hurts individuals who were born into poverty, abuse, etc., but happened to be white.

vicioushobbit:meanmutton: theorellior: meanmutton: The intended meaning: instead of trying to create a society where we ignore skin color and judge people in their actions and character, we've created a system if institutionalized racism through race-based preferences that has hurt both individuals and society, entrenched poverty and dependence among certain minority groups, and hurts individuals who were born into poverty, abuse, etc., but happened to be white.

That seems like a reach. King's dream was that his children be judged on the content of their character, which is not affirmative action by any stretch. In other words, we've not yet reached King's preferred state. This bumper sticker seems to think we've reached King's dream in the form of Barack Obama, and it's a horrible nightmare. It basically reads like the idea of giving blacks rights has gotten them all uppity and look who they elected, a Commie fascist cryptomuslin socialist usurper.

Oh, it's very poor communication, no doubt. But when have bumper stickers ever been good at explaining complex ideologies?

I thought of one. [www.stickershoppe.com image 300x300]

Christians think that sticker means you want to burn them at the stake and force their daughters to suck pagan cock before eating your dinner of aborted Christian fetus lasagna.

Other than advertising "I'm a racist", what could that bumper sticker possibly be trying to convey? It's not humorous. It's not clever or witty. It's just dumb and racist.

The intended meaning: instead of trying to create a society where we ignore skin color and judge people in their actions and character, we've created a system if institutionalized racism through race-based preferences that has hurt both individuals and society, entrenched poverty and dependence among certain minority groups, and hurts individuals who were born into poverty, abuse, etc., but happened to be white.

That is their point.

Translation: "Black bad".

More like: Democrat bad. President is Democrat. Democrat president is black. MLK was black and his dream led to equal rights. Equal rights led to Democrat president. Therefore MLK was bad.

meanmutton:The intended meaning: instead of trying to create a society where we ignore skin color and judge people in their actions and character, we've created a system if institutionalized racism through race-based preferences that has hurt both individuals and society, entrenched poverty and dependence among certain minority groups, and hurts individuals who were born into poverty, abuse, etc., but happened to be white.

About this "entrenched poverty":

In 1960, before the beginnings of affirmative action, the poverty rate among blacks was around 55%. Now it's around 25% - a decrease of more than half. By contrast, the overall poverty rate went from around 21% to around 15%.

Blacks and hispanics still have much higher poverty rates than whites, but that rate has fallen drastically since 1961 - never at any time in history were blacks escaping poverty as successfully as they have been over the past 50 years. There's still a long way to go, but the racial disparity in poverty rates is at least lessening.

No, I think the likelihood of my being a drone target is infinitesimal. If someone near me is the true drone target, my wearing that poncho will not protect me from being collateral damage if a drone hit goes down.

bump:I swear I'm not being willfully ignorant nor antagonistic, but is all this drone/filibuster/etc. fuss over a memo a proposed CIA director wherein he basically said 'no, of course we didn't/wouldn't do such a thing?'

... or did the person say, yeah - we were going to do it, but decided against it....... or did the person say, yeah - we were going to do it, and may consider doing it in the future...... or did the person say, yeah - we didn't do it, but we're going to...

And this is not 'against' any American citizen nor on American soil, but as a possible means of proactively deterring turrist acts?

I honestly don't understand where the facts end and the complaining begin on this one, but would appreciate any CONCISE information anyone has.

It was Eric Holder, the US Attorney General. He responded to an inquiry about the POTUS using drones to kill people in the United States without trial. Eric Holder responded with a statement that essentially said, "Yes, Obama can kill people by drone strike without any legal process whatsoever taking place. But you don't have to worry because he doesn't want to."

To me that is an incredible statement to make. It pretty much spits right in the face of many of the best founding principles of our country. And even if I take Holder at his word that Obama doesn't want to use that kind of power (and I am inclined to) it is a moot point.... Obama won't be president forever. Would I have been willing to trust Mitt Romney with that power? And our country works according to a balance of powers and due process, so even if I did trust any likely POTUS we shouldn't HAVE TO. That's not how America is supposed to work.

mongbiohazard:It was Eric Holder, the US Attorney General. He responded to an inquiry about the POTUS using drones to kill people in the United States without trial. Eric Holder responded with a statement that essentially said, "Yes, Obama can kill people by drone strike without any legal process whatsoever taking place. But you don't have to worry because he doesn't want to."

That wasn't what he said at all - he said it could be done in the same manner as any other military action within the US, which has happened several times in US history. It would basically require a rebellion or an invasion, but it would be possible.